McCain calls for US-led strikes on Syria without UN mandate

McCain calls for US-led strikes on Syria without UN mandate

Who needs diplomacy, or international law? Not former presidential candidate (R-AZ) John McCain, who became the first senator to publicly
call for a US-led military strike on Syria in order to halt the nearly year-long conflict there.

Taking the Senate floor, McCain said there will be no UN mandate for the air strikes he deems the only way to stop the violence – but that a mandate
isn’t necessary.

Really? So forget international law lets just do whatever we want, I mean come on were America we do what we want. The only way we should be allowed
to intervene in other conflicts is if the general population votes for it. How many conflicts are we currently involved in, I mean come on we have
problems at home shouldn't we be focusing on those first?

"The real question for U.S. policy is whether we will participate in this next phase of the conflict in Syria, and thereby increase our ability to
shape an outcome that is beneficial to the Syrian people, and to us."

Constitutional deceleration of War,is the ONLY mandate needed,if war is the answer.

Wow... I think they call that a war of aggression when any other nation does it. McCain has become downright questionable in his mental stability
since he lost his run for the White House. I'm serious. Some of his more recent ideas leave me wondering if he's still playing with a full deck.
He's a Vietnam Vet...He WAS there and DID that. He's just not thinking straight. Perhaps he ought to retire or something.

McCain needs to retire. He's completely tarnished his past with the crap he's pulled over the past 10 years. I have no respect for the man, and as
a veteran, he sickens me. Not ONE American boot should step foot in Syria. Period. Unless, of course, he's volunteering. Then, he can go.

yepers that is McCain your talking about , not that law means any thing to him as long as he can write it or make it become law, see NDAA2012,
or has the words war in it, do I hear drum beats of war? I do I do it is McCain at it again

oh come on that's not all, if McCain had his way there would be troops in the streets of the USA and most of the world, not that we not but
close to it, and he said hes not for war? seems he beats the drums louder than anyone.

First - there is no such thing as international law. You can't have international law without international authority. You can't have
international authority without international enforcement of that authority. You can't have international enforcement without some kind of
international force actually capable of doing something to enforce said international authority.

The closest thing to an international force is the U.S. military - almost exclusively. Not to count out our allies - but no one can dominate several
theaters at one time like we currently are (while paying half our population to exist, as well... imagine what we could do with a functional tax and
funding structure).

The U.N. has very little authority without the U.S. Just the way reality pans out, much to the butt-hurt of smaller nations who still wish the world
consisted only of Europe and Mesopotamia.

Second - We need no U.N. authorization. Granted, it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least make an appearance before the three ring circus prior to
taking action - but it is completely unnecessary. Look at Russia's actions over the past several decades, or Iraq and Iran, for that matter. Where
was the U.N. when they launched unsanctioned attacks on other U.N. member nations? With their hand in the cookie jar.

Third - Air strikes aren't the answer to policing operations. Libya is a prime example of that. We took out the leadership of that country (a VERY
questionable decision to begin with) and the rebellion went ape-# with no way to effectively influence the trajectory of events. Now, people are
being executed for being black migrants (because someone made the claim that scores of migrant workers were being hired to defend the Ghadafi regime)
- or just black... or not well liked. It's a witch-hunt over there.

If we'd committed ground forces, it wouldn't have happened nearly on such a scale; if at all. Although we may have rapidly found new enemies in our
initial allies once the regime fell and they wanted to go about the traditional circus courts and theocratic oligarchies popular in the Middle East.
That would be most entertaining for the next fifteen years.

Which is why we can't decide to "support from afar" in terms of rebellions. You either get your hands dirty with them and state your claim... or
you sit back and eat some pop-corn. The alternative is simply to resort to genocide and purge the whole region of life using patterned dispersal of
strategic yield nuclear warheads... but humans are far too fickle to understand the practicality behind such shrewd logic.

He's dangerously stretching his logic. A moral defeat for America? I bet you 75% of American's can't even find Syria on a map, let alone tell you
why we should bomb them. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Really? So forget international law lets just do whatever we want, I mean come on were America we do what we want. The only way we should be allowed
to intervene in other conflicts is if the general population votes for it. How many conflicts are we currently involved in, I mean come on we have
problems at home shouldn't we be focusing on those first?

Question... Is Syria following international law by butchering their citizens? They obviously cant protect themselves, so it looks like someone needs
to intervene...Not saying it has to be the United States, but someone needs to step in

Let them rebel on their own if their stuck under a corrupt gov't, isn't that what we had to do. If somebody wants to get involved whys it have to be
us? We stick our nose in everything, even when we don't have the funds for it. Doing that will come back to bite us in the rear. We could end up
bogging ourselfs down for another 15 years, do we really need that right now.

Civilians are being killed because the Free Syrian Army are moving into urban areas and engaging the Syrian army. In a sense using them as human
shields. Western media continues to assert that somehow these civilians are opposed to the Assad regime and that they elected to be occupied by
defector forces. This is a tiny portion of the population dissenting. The Syrian army then is forced to engage the Free Syrian Army with civilians
everywhere. They have AK's and RPGs while the government has tanks, BOOM. Yes, civilians are being killed but the real truth is that Western powers
want to dispose another leader so they can install another jihadist backed regime and undermine their political and financial assets. This is the same
thing that happened in Libya. "intervention" sent the entire country into chaos, now hundreds of black Libyans are being targeted. Don't let the media
hype you up.

The big question is: Is Syria butchering it's own citizens? Are we the public being fooled yet again by our government controlled media into
believing there is another dictator killing his own people? Just like Libya? And we know the big lie of Libya don't we!

When you have US, UK controlled and armed terrorists like Al-Qaeda posing as government troops running around killing people left, right and centre
who is to say the Syrian government are the ones with their fingers on the triggers. Those terrorists are armed to the teeth and all the arms came
directly from the US and UK.

I work in the Oil & Gas industry overseas in Algeria. The Algerians here and the visiting Syrian workers all say the same thing. The killings are not
being done by Assad. They are being done by Western Controlled Al-Qaeda. This is another Libya scenario. Demonize the government so you can get public
approval for invasion. And the invasion is not for OIL it is for domination and control of an Iranian and Russian ally.

Let them rebel on their own if their stuck under a corrupt gov't, isn't that what we had to do.

Honestly, this is why I think we should not have kindergarten and grade school level history courses. We wouldn't have fared "nearly as well" as
we had without the French.

France was, quite literally, using the American Revolution as a proxy war with their old rivals, the British Empire (and the British were imposing a
lot of their new rule on us because we were busy making ships for France and anyone else who would pay).

In all likelihood, our rebellion would have barely made it off the ground were it not for France wanting to stick it to the British and secure future
shipbuilding contracts.

If somebody wants to get involved whys it have to be us?

Congress is where those types of things are decided. People can be of differing opinions on the issue and propose we take varying types of action.

We stick our nose in everything, even when we don't have the funds for it.

We have the funding for it. Granted - doesn't mean we should do it, or that it is consistent with the mission of our armed forces - but we have the
funding.

The reason you think we don't is that it all gets returned to meth addicts via "earned income credits" and other such programs that ultimately end
up paying people to breed like rabbits and file for disability for being "psychologically unable to hold a job" (lazy as all holy #) while people
recovering from broken spines have to fight a war to receive disability.

Of course, the National Government has been operating in gross violation of the Tenth Amendment for the past 100 years, and over 70% of the budget
goes toward unconstitutional (even treasonous) spending programs designed to make the population dependent upon government handouts (solidifying the
power of the oligarchy and giving a vote-purchasing mechanic to candidates).

Doing that will come back to bite us in the rear.

Can't be any worse than 'trade' with China. An oxymoron if there ever was one.

We could end up bogging ourselfs down for another 15 years, do we really need that right now.

Again - that's what Congress is for. I'm a strategist and enlisted type. Once the people who like to think they are in charge figure out what we
are doing, it's up to people like myself to tell them how we're going to go about it. Then they ignore us, and come up with some stupid plan that
fails so epically that they don't even bother making a campaign ribbon for it.

I can't convince you that we should or shouldn't go to help Syria out with their little rebellion. I simply know that we need to be all in, or all
out. Trying to sit on the fence or play politics with it simply causes bad things to happen.

I'm fine with either decision, to be honest. I don't think you can really place a "right" or "wrong" on the decision to engage or not engage -
but there is a right and a wrong way to do both of them, and I'd like to see us do something the right way as opposed to one of the many stupid ways.

I wouldnt say its necessarily "hyping" me up. Ideally Id like to see peace in te region with no women and children be killed off as collateral
damage... I live here in Chicago just like you, I see this stuff being plastered all over the western media we deal with, i accept that the majority
of the world news I read and see here is extremely subjective, but I always feel there is a grain of truth in most stories you read today... Either
way, I feel that men can risk their lives, they can try to overthrow a government all they want, when innocent women and children start being killed
it truly starts to bother me, because they are the innocent pawns in this whole mess...

No war is truly fought by soldiers and soldiers, alone. People feed those soldiers (and/or militants). People interact with them, befriend them
(before and during the conflict), and will act instinctively to preserve the life of someone they care about.

In that respect, you can't ever have a war that maintains an ounce of civility.

Every war is an idealistic war - a contest of wills and an attempt to force another into submission.

As Stalin said: "You cannot fight a revolution with silk gloves."

Whether the rebels are "the problem" or the government is, from your perspective - it is a fact of life that war will always be a messy business
that involves more than simply the combatants.

I agree with most of what you just said as for the french involvement in our revolution yes they did play a considerate part in it, I feel that the
more important thing we received from them was the model on how to actually follow through on a revolution. We basically took note of how the french
acted and repeated. The only difference was that we weren't guillotining heads off in a public square.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.